Anne McIntosh: Last year, the Prime Minister said:
	"In addition to that"
	—the money allocated—
	"under the Bellwin scheme, it will be open to local authorities to be reimbursed for the additional costs that they face, and I know that those requests will be looked at sympathetically."—[ Official Report, 27 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 325.]
	In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), and indeed in the whole of Gloucestershire, there is a £60 million black hole that must be filled by the council. Moreover, I have been informed by the leader of Gloucestershire county council that it has received no new money to reduce the risk of flooding in the county. Can the Minister tell us why the Secretary of State's constituency and other urban constituencies receive money for flood defences, while all that rural constituencies such as mine and my hon. Friend's are given is money for flood impact and feasibility studies?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman raises two very important points. We have the strategy, through the adaptation toolkit, which we are working on, including by having discussions with hon. Members in all parts of the House and local authorities. That is about what specific measures we need to take to ensure that bureaucracies do not get in the way of protecting peoples' communities. The adaptation toolkit is very important; I know that it does not sound it, but it is. Secondly, on abandonment, the difficulty in this debate is that, as I said before, the protection of one area of coastline can have an impact on another. It is simply not possible to protect everywhere. The word abandonment is, of course, very emotive.
	The natural erosion of the coast, or increased erosion caused by climate change, is something that the Government could not stop in every instance, no matter how much money they spent. We need a fair set of criteria that are transparent and acceptable to the House, and that is the policy on which we are working. One can never talk about not abandoning areas if it is nature that is the problem. On the point about compensation, in the adaptation toolkit—

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to express the profound appreciation—of the whole House, I am sure—of Nick Stern's work on this issue. He has divided the emissions that it seems the world can cope with, if we achieve the global 50 per cent. reduction by 2050, by the expected population, and that is the kind of figure that we have ended up with. Our problem is that the current distribution per capita ranges from about 20 tonnes per head of population in the United States of America to about 0.1 tonnes per head of population in Ethiopia. How we move from where we are now to where we need to be is the great challenge faced by the negotiations.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that explanation. Is he aware that among the ideas being put forward for managing Norfolk's sea defences is a proposal for managed retreat? That will involve the flooding not of marshlands or wetland but of five villages and thousands of acres of arable land. What do the Government have against Norfolk, one of the most loyal communities in the country? Will he give me an undertaking today that those five thousand-year old settlements will not be submerged under a tidal wave of new Labour complacency?

Hilary Benn: I say to the hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said a moment ago, that I understand entirely the concern generated by the report, but as my hon. Friend made clear in his answer to a previous question, decisions about what we protect and how are not taken by Natural England, but by the Environment Agency, subject to the policy we set out. We are committed to do all that we can to protect communities, which is why we are putting more money in. We all have to recognise, however, that nature is very powerful, and how we manage the transition is a job for all of us to work on together.

Michael Jack: The Secretary of State will be aware of the importance of carbon capture and storage as one of the tools to deal with climate change. However, he will also be aware that Mr. Michael Jacobs, one of the Prime Minister's advisers on the subject, recently advised a conference in London that Government support for a pilot project would be restricted to some tens of millions of pounds, against capital costs in excess of £1 billion. Not surprisingly, the industry has expressed concern at that. Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that he will ensure that Government support for carbon capture and storage is pitched at the right level, to ensure, once and for all, that a project gets underway in the United Kingdom?

Phil Woolas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. Our policy is to encourage the development of carbon capture and storage. It is extremely important to have a demonstration project showing that the technology works, not only for the United Kingdom, but the whole world's energy transformation. Our policy is to argue for the inclusion of CCS credits in the European trading scheme as an important policy tool. Indeed, I met the company concerned in the United Kingdom only last week.

Mark Harper: Four years ago, on European election day, the House had a debate in Government time on disabled people. Two years ago, on local election day, a similar debate took place. I had expected a debate on disabled people to take place today, although I am pleased that it did not, because it would have been overshadowed by events elsewhere. When that point was raised with the Minister for disabled people, she suggested that it be raised at business questions. Given that the Government will publish an annual report about its progress on "Aiming high for disabled people", perhaps the Leader of the House could consider having an annual debate, in Government time and on the Floor of the House, about disabled people and the Government's policies on disability, so we may debate those important issues.

David Lidington: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Let me move on to the situation in Iraq. The Government recently announced that the planned reduction in the number of British troops in Iraq will be postponed. In his opening speech, the Minister talked about the political progress that still needs to be made in Iraq if a stable, democratic Government is to be established there; that progress will involve political leaders from all the main religious and ethnic groups in that country. He referred specifically to the provincial elections planned for later this year. Is he able to say anything further about the extent to which the continued presence of the current number of British soldiers in Iraq is dependent on that political progress in Baghdad and outside? For example, in the Government's mind, are they tying the deployment of the current number of British troops to a successful, peaceful outcome in the provincial elections in the autumn?
	We know from recent comments by General Petraeus that the Americans believe that the authorities in Iran have been supplying weapons that have been used to attack United States and British soldiers deployed in Iraq. Is it the British Government's assessment that the Government in Iran have indeed been directly involved in the supply of such weapons, and are actively supporting attacks on members of our country's armed forces? Clearly, if the Government have evidence that there is such a direct relationship, that has grave implications for the future of our relations with Iran. Like the Minister, I hope that we can establish better relationships with Iran in future—it is an important regional power—but we need progress, both in dealing with the potential threat of Iranian nuclear weapons and on the potential threat to our soldiers on active service in Iraq.

Crispin Blunt: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), and I commend his and his colleagues' initiative in visiting Gaza. I have also done so in the past year. The situation there is one of despair, with all the consequences that come from 1.5 million people living in terrible circumstances. Let me return to that issue later.
	This is a topical debate on the middle east, but the middle east is always topical, and it would be interesting to know why it popped up today. I did not envy the Minister or his brilliant advisers at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office having to produce a 10-minute speech to cover the middle east peace process, Iraq, the importance of the Gulf Co-operation Council, Iran, Syria and Lebanon for the edification of the House. It all makes this debate an exchange of headlines as much as anything else. It gives the Minister the opportunity to restate one or two Government positions, but it is almost impossible for us to get into the detail of any middle east issue.
	However, let me try to get into the detail of one such issue—the United Kingdom's representation and understanding in the middle east. Historically, we have an immensely strong position in the region. However, in the past 10 years we have lacked the joined-up thinking, ability and propensity to draw on our understanding as a nation. Part of that has been due to the emasculation of the policy making of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the first 10 years of the Labour Government. A concentration on policy making within a small cabal inside Downing street characterised the previous Prime Minister's term in office, and that has wreaked havoc with our reputation in the middle east.
	We have the benefit of years of experience among our diplomats and soldiers, who have taken time in their long careers to understand the region and the Arab perspective. The Government have preferred to trust their own dogmatic appreciation of events. In the past 10 years, we have chosen a path that has made our foreign policy on the region seem indistinguishable from that of our American allies. Our interests in the region are, however, profoundly different. We should recognise that.
	Furthermore, the previous Prime Minister showed an interest that seemed sometimes childishly simple, and at other times deeply patronising, to those on the receiving end. He had a flair for fleetingly inserting himself into trouble spots as a sort of additional American Secretary of State—one thinks of his charge down the steps on to the tarmac in Syria for what ended up as a disastrous visit and his intervention in Lebanon—but it took him 10 years to visit the United Arab Emirates, which he did right at the end of his premiership.
	That is one example of where our priorities were profoundly wrong in those 10 years, quite apart from all the conflicts we got into and the trouble elsewhere. I very much welcome the statement by the Minister that the Gulf Co-operation Council area is the area most visited by Ministers. I would particularly like to applaud the efforts of His Royal Highness the Duke of York in supporting the efforts of Lord Jones of Birmingham. The two of them are doing an immensely important job in fronting our business and trade interests in that region, and I am delighted that their efforts are getting the support from other Ministers that they so richly deserve.
	As one of the parliamentary chairmen of the Council for Arab-British Understanding and the Conservative Middle East Council, I, like a scratched record, again ask Members to encourage more engagement with and more understanding of the region. We need to engage in more patient study of the issues and their causes so that we can understand them. We need to spend more time listening to the Arab world, and we need to listen to the Iranians and understand their perspective. I advocate visits by parliamentarians and Ministers to the region, but we should not forget the scale of the British-Arab and the British-Iranian interest in the United Kingdom. Those communities should be better engaged in our domestic processes, which will offer benefits to our foreign policy as well as to community relations in the UK. The obvious benefit is that we will then have a better understanding of how to pursue our interest in the region.
	In three or four years time, Qatar is likely to have the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. Where the Qataris decide to invest will be critical to many of our businesses and our country. Indeed, to secure our energy needs, we are engaged in creating important links to get liquid petroleum gas from Qatar. Let us just imagine, however, Iran providing that opportunity as well as Qatar. Along with the United States, we have pursued a policy of confrontation with Iran. I say nothing to defend the deeply unattractive Government of Iran or their position, but our policy is based on a profound lack of understanding of the Iranian perspective. A lot of what they do in their pursuit of diplomacy internationally is unforgivable, but we should at least try to understand why they pursue their aims in such a way. If we understand that better, we can begin the process—it will be long, but we have to start somewhere—of moving to a position where 75 million Iranians are again an effective market for British financial services and manufactured goods. Our oil and gas companies should be able to go in to assist in the development of Iran's vast oil and gas reserves, for their benefit and ours. There is a massive mutual interest.
	The product of our policy on Iran has, ironically, turned this deeply unattractive Government into the leaders of the most significant regional power. The decisions that they take, particularly with regard to the neighbouring conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that we are engaged in, are immensely important for the United Kingdom and the thousands of our soldiers deployed in the region, whether we like it our not. We have to find a way of improving the outcome of policy on Iran, and we would be able to do that if we understood Iran better.
	I briefly return to the Israeli-Arab conflict. We are debating the United Kingdom's role and involvement in it, and by extension, that of the international community as a whole. I sometimes wonder whether it would not be better for the international community to step back a little. In the end, this conflict has to be resolved by the people of Israel and the Palestinian people. Until the basic insecurity of the state of Israel and the obvious injustice of what has happened to the Palestinians in the past 60 years are addressed—and those two can only be addressed together—the conflict will continue. The message I urge on Arab representatives to whom I speak and on the Palestinians whom I meet in the course of the extra work I do in Parliament is that they should address their policy to the people of Israel.
	In the end, the people of Israel will have to vote for a Government who will do an historic deal with the Palestinians. In the same way, the people of Palestine will have to support a Government who do a deal with the people of Israel and their Government. That will happen only when there is a sufficient kernel of opinion in both countries that people want peace and are prepared to go through the pain required to get it. That means the Israelis have to appreciate the importance of the Arab peace plan, rather than just trying to push it away. It also means that the Arab League has to reinforce the statement of the Arab peace plan—an historic offer to live in peace in Israel and to offer it the prospect of normalisation with its neighbours. That peace plan must be driven through and reinforced with a soft diplomacy aimed at the people of Israel. It must convince them that Arab states really mean it when they talk about normalisation.
	Once that message is put to the people of Israel, they can begin to address the insecurity at the heart of many Israeli people's existence, reflected by the experiences referred to by the hon. Member for High Peak. I hope that such a position would give the Israelis confidence to begin to address the terrible injustice that has been meted out to the Palestinians. The story of the past 60 years is a horrifying one, which has overflowed into all the nations that border Palestine and Israel. One has only to look at the catastrophic effect of the involvement of Palestinian refugees on the politics of Lebanon—the awful Lebanese civil war and the enormous complications that that produced—to understand how important it is that the two peoples are reconciled.
	I leave the Minister and the House with this thought. The international community is an external actor in this situation, and for the main players, the Israeli and Palestinian people, it tends to be a question of manipulating that community to achieve a particular objective. I sometimes wonder whether the international community should try to remove that opportunity from them, and ensure that the responsibility for resolving this conflict is not something for the Americans to broker, or for other external actors to deliver. This is about Israel getting its security within a region that is Arab, and how the Arabs and the Israelis deal with the situation together. They have to stop looking to the rest of us to sort it out for them. I offer that reflection having spent a long time thinking about how the UK and others can contribute to the situation. I sometimes wonder whether doing a little less might achieve rather more.

Anne McGuire: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will come on to deal with those issues later. We must recognise the fluctuations in costs and it is quite difficult to carry out an analysis over such a short period. I will come on to deal with the heart of these questions a little later in my speech.
	In 1999, the Government committed themselves to halving child poverty by 2010 and abolishing it by 2020. We not only committed to halt the upward trend in child poverty and bring it down but set ourselves on a path to abolish it altogether. I hope that all hon. Members, regardless of their political background, will recognise that our commitment was bold as well as ambitious. I would like to put on record the fact that we made such a powerful commitment because we understood the damage that poverty does to individuals and communities. Poverty not only erodes a person's self-confidence; it limits their ambition and puts them at a long-term disadvantage.
	In childhood, poverty is especially corrosive. During a time of life that should be full of hope and opportunity, a child living and growing up in poverty, is especially vulnerable.

Anne McGuire: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has pinpointed the inconsistencies—we have to be careful about the words we use in this Chamber—in the views of SNP Members.  [Interruption.] Let me make a little progress, particularly in view of the heckling by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil).
	I was saying that progress has been made on child poverty in Scotland. Thanks to a co-operative and sustained partnership between the UK Government and the previous Scottish Executive, child poverty in Scotland is now lower than the UK average. Between 1998-99 and 2005-06, the proportion of children in relative low income in Scotland fell from 28 per cent. to 21 per cent.—a fall of 90,000—and is now lower than the UK average, as was identified by the recently published Scottish Government discussion paper on tackling poverty.
	Those statistics mean that Scotland met the 2004-05 child poverty target to reduce relative child poverty in Great Britain by one quarter and it is no coincidence that, as employment rises and unemployment decreases, we see this marked reduction in child poverty. The Government continue to believe that employment—a job—is the key route out of poverty and that work for those who can remains the most sustainable route in tackling poverty. So, achieving our goals on child poverty will be realised only by making real progress in achieving our goal of employment opportunities for all.
	Of course, work must be made to pay, which is why the Government introduced the tax credit system and the national minimum wage in spite of the siren voices on the official Opposition Benches who told us it would cost millions of jobs and in spite of the sleepy heads on the SNP Benches who could not even stay up to vote for it. We know, too, that children living in workless families are much more likely to be poor.  [Interruption.] I do not think that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar would have stayed up all night, but perhaps he should comment on whether his colleagues were capable of staying up to vote on an important issue that meant a lot to many low-paid families in Scotland. Worklessness disadvantages not only parents, but their children, so to secure progress on employment is to secure progress on child poverty. A Government can do few better things than to help a parent to get a job, which will not only help them, but help provide for their children. In lone parent households, or families in which an adult is disabled, employment support is particularly needed. That is why the new deal programme has been so important and successful, helping thousands of people in Scotland into work.

Anne Begg: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from tax credits, I would be interested to hear him clarify the point he is making about bureaucracy. One of the reasons why tax credits are often overpaid is because of the way in which the system works to ensure that people do not constantly have to give information about income changes; the system contains an element of rationalisation. Is it the Conservative party's position that such reconciliation should be take place monthly? That would be even more bureaucratic, which is why the Government did not go down that route.

David Mundell: I do not accept the hon. Lady's proposition at all. In fact, her contribution typifies the approach of Labour Members, who wish to focus entirely on the past, and not on the future or on their inability to meet the targets that they set for themselves.
	It is unfortunate that Labour's policies were all calculated on the basis of a very narrow measure of poverty: having less than 60 per cent. of average median income, adjusting for family size. On that basis, the Government set a target of halving child poverty by 2010 and eliminating it by 2020. Although I share that aspiration, I would point out that progress to date has been largely achieved by moving hundreds of people who were receiving a few pounds a week less than the poverty line to a position in which they receive a few pounds more. In other words, the Government have been able to present themselves in a favourable light to the media without letting on that the problems of very severe poverty have largely been left untouched.
	So, if we accept that the system is unnecessarily complex, we must consider why it has been constructed in such a way. While I do not dispute that the current Prime Minister—the previous Chancellor—may be attracted to complexity for its own sake, a far more likely explanation is that the Government were determined to micro-manage the incomes of millions of Britons. Some have speculated that this was for ideological reasons. Others have said that it was to make people think that they were in some way dependent on the Government's staying in power. The most innocent explanation is that the Government wished to create a system that did not waste money and targeted help where it was needed, even if that has not been achieved in practice. This is not the place to speculate on which motive was most likely, as more important issues are at stake.
	The most important issue is that this very heavy means testing has imposed high marginal rates of taxation on many low-income families and has therefore undermined the incentive for parents to take on a job, work more hours or move up the career ladder. The Treasury itself says that
	"worklessness and low pay are the biggest direct causes of poverty...a child's risk of being in poverty falls from 58 per cent. to 14 per cent. when one or both their parents is working".
	An illustration of how many people suffer such disincentives is the fact that more than two million working people in the UK stand to lose, in a vicious combination of increased taxes and cuts in their benefits, more than half of any increase in earnings that they make. The abolition of the 10p tax rate will exacerbate this situation even further. Notwithstanding the compensation package that has been forced out of the Government, the number will rise to more than 2.25 million.
	If we take the problem of high marginal taxation at its most extreme, some 160,000 people in Britain would keep less than 10p of each extra £1 that they earned. To put that into perspective, that is three times the entire population of Inverness. For working an extra hour, often in hard jobs, those people would earn only a few more pennies.
	The high rates of marginal taxation have led the Institute of Fiscal Studies to conclude that although the Government's over-reliance on means-tested benefits may reduce measured child poverty in the short term,
	"its indirect effect may be to increase poverty through weakening incentives for parents to work".
	In short, I very much accept that tax credits are an essential part of modern welfare policy, but I want to see them simplified, and the disincentives to work that are the unintended consequence of the system reduced.
	I also want to see much better support for people looking to get back into work, with effective practices adapted from other countries and an expectation that the unemployed, if able to do so, will take part in welfare-to-work programmes.

Alan Reid: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He raises a serious problem.
	The charging regime for meters should be reversed, so that the first units of energy consumed are the cheapest, unlike under the current system, where people who use small amounts of electricity and gas often pay a higher unit cost. The availability of low-cost energy conservation measures should be extended and the winter fuel allowance should be extended to those on higher-rate disability benefits.
	Another respect in which the rising price of fuel causes tremendous problems for people on low incomes is through rapidly rising transport costs for those who live in our remote communities. The Scottish Affairs Committee was absolutely correct that when it said:
	"It is too easy to assume that poverty in Scotland is limited to deprived urban areas, made visible by problems such as poor housing or graffiti."
	Poverty exists in rural communities as well as urban ones, often in homes off the beaten track and not noticed by those who come to look at the marvellous scenery. The Committee was right to state that
	"poverty in rural areas is exacerbated by specific factors including the availability and quality of employment opportunities, transport costs and a dispersed population."
	High fuel prices deliver a triple whammy to people living in remote areas. First, petrol and diesel cost more than in urban areas. Secondly, people have further to drive to get to work or the shops. Thirdly, there is a lack of public transport alternatives. The rising cost of transport makes it more difficult to sustain businesses and can sometimes mean that a low paid job is not worth taking, owing to the cost of travel to and from work.
	As well as removing opportunities for parents to earn money, the high cost of transport can lead to social exclusion for many children living in poverty. Children living in remote communities need to travel to meet other children of their age and engage in social pursuits such as sport, playing in bands and singing in choirs. The highlands and islands have a rich heritage of music and songs. Bands and choirs have to travel great distances to take part in concerts and competitions, but the rapidly rising cost of fuel makes fundraising for the pipe band, the Gaelic choir and the football or shinty team much more daunting.

Alan Reid: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. She is perfectly correct. Cheap ferry fares should be available to all islands and peninsulas, not just those that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar represents.

Alan Reid: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will move on. If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) wants to find the answer, he should read my letter in this week's  Oban Times.
	Another example of where the Scottish National party is contributing to poverty in the highlands and islands is by cutting the budget of Highlands and Islands Enterprise—the local agency that helps businesses, particularly those just getting off the ground, in the highlands and islands. The SNP cuts mean that fewer jobs are available, a grim prospect when the forecast is for an economic showdown—I mean slowdown.

David Cairns: Or even showdown, who knows? The hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that issues of poverty are neither devolved nor reserved and that we need to work together. The hon. Gentleman will know that an initiative for these areas that was begun by Lord Forsyth was the Convention of the Highlands and Islands. Since its inception and particularly since devolution, it has looked at which issues should be devolved and which reserved; many of the decisions on issues affecting the highlands and islands are still taken here. Does the hon. Gentleman have any explanation, other than sheer spite, of why the new SNP Administration has cut Westminster out of the Convention of the Highlands and Islands, depriving people in the highlands and islands of the opportunity to put to Westminster Ministers many of the issues that he has rightly highlighted?

Sandra Osborne: I begin by congratulating the Scottish Affairs Committee on its valuable work on poverty. It is some years since I was a member of that Select Committee and a great deal of work has been done subsequently. We all know that the life chances of too many Scots have been strangled at birth, so it is timely to take a look at how far we have come, what progress has been made and where there is room for improvement.
	It was Labour in opposition that led the assault on the scourge of poverty under the Tories; it was Labour that provided a detailed analysis of the root causes of poverty under the Tories; and only Labour had the underlying values and ideology to address poverty in government and to make real progress in tackling poverty in Scotland and in the UK more widely.
	Child poverty is of the utmost importance because in eradicating it we are paving the way for a society in which for the first time every child has a chance in life—a chance that will not lead to a dead end. Childhood poverty leads, for the most part, to lifelong poverty. Even those who escape financial poverty are left with the scars, which is why we hear so many Scots from working-class communities saying that they will never forget where they came from.
	As we have heard from many hon. Members today, poverty needs to be addressed in all its aspects, because they are all interlinked. Unemployment, low pay, pensioner poverty, family poverty, women in poverty, the disabled, poor housing, deprivation, education, class and inequality, poverty and ill health are all connected and must all be addressed. Labour has recognised for decades how important all those issues are, but only when in power has it been able to start to do something about them. Therein lies a lesson for us all on the Labour side.
	We have heard the statistics that show how well the Government are doing in tackling child poverty. We have heard about the record rises in child benefit, with 600,000 taken out of poverty—impacting even more in Scotland, which started out with higher poverty levels. As we have heard, that has received a warm welcome from many organisations in civil society in Scotland, including Barnardo's, the Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice Scotland, the Church of Scotland and Save the Children. Statistics can be boring, but they matter to the individuals whom they affect: the person who has seen his or her income rise substantially thanks to the minimum wage, or the lone parent who now has a living wage thanks to the working tax credit and affordable child care. The Government's approach has been, and as we have heard from the Minister will continue to be, targeted support for those who need it most, work for those who can, breaking the cycle of deprivation, and delivering high-quality public services. That is a long-term approach that will bring about long-term change, to offer every individual and every generation the opportunity and support to raise and fulfil their aspirations.
	Where I grew up, we had few aspirations and even less chance of realising them. Then the Tories came along, and we were completely scuppered. It is a positive fact that the aspirations of most young people now are entirely different from the hopelessness of the 1980s. Scotland has moved on, but still too many are left behind. We are making a difference, as the Select Committee's report acknowledges. When the Government are criticised, it is usually for not doing enough, and not doing it quickly enough, not for doing nothing, as was the case with previous Tory Governments.
	The Committee's report and the many organisations that have briefed us for this debate all make the point that progress has stalled, so that must be our main focus. Nevertheless, it never does any harm to highlight, as a starting point, what has been achieved and can be built on. It seems that there is a consensus now that it is not a question of if, but how and when. What a change that is from the days in poverty under the Conservative party, which seems to have a new-found concern for the issue. As other hon. Members have said, that is certainly welcome, but will they put their money where their mouth is and commit to public spending on the issue? In Scotland, will the Scottish Government make the hard decisions needed to protect the most vulnerable in our country, who are not always popular causes, or will they play to the gallery?
	I can remember standing outside jobcentres in the '80s, gathering information on jobs advertised at 80p an hour, in the fight against low pay. In 1997, my predecessor Phil Gallie said that it was okay for someone to be paid £1.50 an hour if that is what the market dictates. That is why it was no imposition for me—unlike some other hon. Members—to stay up all night to see the national minimum wage passed through the House. But I also say to the Government that that is why there is unfinished business such as the Temporary and Agency Workers (Equal Treatment) Bill, which practically all Labour Back Benchers were here on a Friday to support. We all look forward to its being passed, because it is part of the jigsaw—it is about not just fairness but tackling child poverty. As the Committee says in its report, where work is of poor quality, low- paid, short-term or seasonal, in-work poverty is a real prospect.
	I remember when, as a young mother, you could not get a pre-school nursery place in Scotland for love or money. There was not one recognition from the then Government that child care or nursery provision had anything to do with them. The Tory Government thought that it was all down to the family—of course, they could all afford nannies. It is a proud achievement that pre-school education is now a statutory obligation; it is just as well, because otherwise it would be likely to be cut, as happened in the past.
	I was disappointed to read the comments yesterday of my Labour colleague, Scottish MSP Rhona Brankin, that the Scottish Government look set to water down a commitment to the provision of more nursery teachers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) has said, the money for nursery places for vulnerable two-year-olds will not now be found.
	We all know that poverty is also gender-specific. While we support lone parents back into work, we should also remember that women are still paid on an unequal basis with men. It has been shown that equal pay will not happen on a voluntary basis, and we now need statutory equal pay audits. Equal pay would go a long way towards helping with child poverty.
	As the Committee said, there is more to do, and its report outlines several recommendations that are well worthy of consideration if the target to halve child poverty by 2010 is to be met. I agree with its finding that we should consider the equalisation of child benefit for all children and families, as suggested by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), especially given the impact that that would have in lifting a further 30,000 children out of poverty. However, that prompts the eternal question of targeted benefits versus universal benefits. As we are all aware, everybody gets child benefit but it does not necessarily target resources in the best way. Contrary to what I have heard in this House several times recently, take-up of tax credits for families with children is higher than under any previous system of income-related support for in-work families, with take-up among those with incomes of less than £10,000 now at 97 per cent. in the UK, according to the Government's figures. It may be that increasing tax credits would be the best way to tackle poverty by releasing resources to those who need them most.
	Last week, the church and society council of the Church of Scotland met us in the House. The council has made proposals on tackling debt, focusing on the need to find alternatives to the high-interest doorstep lenders who often target families with young children. It calls for an effective, flexible alternative through the social fund and supports the Committee's recommendation of empowering courts to fix a reasonable cap on interest rates, as in many other European countries. I know of other areas where such help has been extended through the voluntary sector by a crisis loan facility for priority debts paid through the local credit union. That has proved to be a very effective mechanism, and I would like the Government to give consideration to how it can be promoted.
	We need to heed the Save the Children report, which shows that the poorest families pay £1,000 per year more for services because they do not have access to low-cost credit, fair banking or direct debit; and we are only too well aware of the extra costs of prepayment meters for fuel. I welcome the fact that Ofgem is considering that, and we all hope that this unfairness will be ended. We also need the restoration and expansion of free-to-use ATMs, not just the offers made in recent times by the very banks who removed them in the first place.
	We must take seriously evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that the present system of uprating tax credits, benefits and allowances lags behind average incomes every year. That is reinforced by the Child Poverty Action Group's view that the minimum wage, in-work tax credit and benefit support must be raised so that no child in a working family is left in poverty. Most of the charities have endorsed the Committee's view that the tax and benefits system must, at a minimum, ensure that no one in full-time work is living in poverty. Almost half the children in poverty are in families in paid work. I welcome the pilots that will start in the autumn of the better off in work credit to ensure that everyone who has been claiming benefits for at least six months sees a gain from working of at least £25 per week. That is a modest measure, but it is a recognition that work, as the best route out of poverty, will be of benefit only if it is worth while working in the first place.
	The Government have laid the foundation for the eradication of child poverty, and the direction of travel is now well established. However, I would like to raise with the Minister a couple of issues that have arisen in my constituency and are pertinent to the debate as well as to those living on a fixed income throughout the country.
	First, I am grateful to Dr. Calum McCabe, one of our local GPs, who has brought to my attention a problem experienced by some of his patients in accessing benefits by phone. As we all know, many people on fixed incomes do not have landlines and instead use pay-as-you-go mobile phones. They may be more expensive in the long term but, like prepayment meters, they are used because they mean that people on fixed incomes do not run up bills. Many Government-run helplines—such as the ones for tax credits, benefits inquiries and the social fund—use numbers with the 0845 prefix that are assumed to be free or local-rate numbers. However, mobile network operators connect customers to the services at premium rates, with the result that low-income users who have no access to a landline incur disproportionate costs in accessing taxpayer-funded services.
	I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 1285, which has been signed by 65 hon. Members of all parties. It calls on the Government to bring in legislation so that the numbers are genuinely free to all users. It also asks the Government to look into providing free of charge at the point of use all essential Government-run helplines for which no alternative face-to-face service is provided.
	Secondly, I want to refer to a constituent who lost her partner of 24 years in a tragic accident. They had two children, who are now aged seven and two. Although they were not married, they had been together since schooldays and their relationship outlasted many marriages. She sought financial help from the Government through the bereavement payment and the widow's parent's allowance. In a very blunt telephone call, she was informed that she had a very slim chance of success, as 99.6 per cent. of claims fail. She was told that, if she wished to proceed with the claim, she would be interviewed by two assessors. She would also have to furnish them with cards that showed that she and her partner had been related as husband and wife. Finally, three witnesses would be questioned about their belief that the couple were married.
	It beggars belief that anyone should be subjected to such an insensitive, intrusive and discriminatory process at such a vulnerable time in her life.

Sandra Osborne: I do, but unfortunately they were saved at the expense of a new cancer care unit and two community health facilities which were supposed to bring health care much closer to the community. I certainly do not welcome that loss incurred by my constituents.
	As was acknowledged in the committee's report, under a Labour leadership we have been able to make real advances in recent years, but with an SNP-led Scottish Government, that has already been put at risk and is starting to unravel in many places. Making a cut in business rates and giving nothing in return may appeal to the Tories as a sensible flagship policy, but it has not given me the sense of an SNP Government prioritising social justice and committed to eradicating poverty. Twinning that with proposals to freeze the council tax without a proper and serious strategy to ensure ongoing support for groups who rely on local government funding may also seem perfectly sensible to the Scottish Tories, but it puts at risk a very successful partnership between national and local government and the voluntary sector to tackle poverty.

Angus MacNeil: The UNICEF table might provide some help to the hon. Gentleman. Ireland, which has become independent from the United Kingdom, is in the top 10, whereas the United Kingdom is in 21st place out of 21. Perhaps independence would be a useful and successful tool in fighting child poverty.
	As I was saying, the aim is to increase the proportion of income earned by the bottom 30 per cent. We could glibly say that one of the most important factors in fighting poverty is wealth. The relationship between the two came up in a book that was given to me by a lecturer in public health at Aberdeen university, "The Health of Nations: Why Inequality is Harmful to Your Health" by Ichiro Kawachi and Bruce P. Kennedy. The book demonstrates what we all instinctively know: generally, the greater the income inequalities in any country, the worse the health expectancy and life expectancy are in that country. Those problems are, of course, results of poverty.
	While the Scottish Government are aware of the need to increase GDP per capita to that of other countries similar to Scotland, we are also aware that the creation and sharing of wealth need to go hand in hand. If we are to have a society at peace with itself, with optimal health outcomes and the lowest possible poverty rates, that is a laudable aim.
	In my view, we will need powers additional to those that Scotland independently controls. That means that more powers would need to be devolved from Westminster to Holyrood. I am sure that the national conversation and the Calman commission will both be useful to that end. Perhaps a laudable aim for those two bodies might be to identify what new powers would help Scotland to tackle its terrible levels of child poverty, which, we have to remember, are above the UK average, while the UK is bottom of 21 nations in the UNICEF table.
	We need to look, at course, at the devolved levers. I think that the Scottish Government are using those. These are the slow-burn issues: health, education, skills and housing. Many of the witnesses that appeared before the Committee told us that the levers controlled by the Department for Work and Pensions were the most instrumental in tackling levels of child poverty.

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend is correct. When I taught on the Isle of Mull in the mid-1990s, housing was a particular problem. Children oscillated between various abodes during the year, spending six months in a winter let and then, when the summer season came, moving to a caravan for the summer. I hope that that situation will now come to an end. This subject hits all parties. We can easily throw insults around and say that this lot or that lot are to blame, but such things happen, and we have to do something about them.
	Poverty is a big issue. In this speech, I can only throw a few shafts of light on it, when it requires floodlights— [ Interruption. ] Cruelly, the Minister of State, Scotland Office, tells me that I am not even doing that. I strive to do it. Charities, PhDs and professors are working on the subject, but the Scottish Affairs Committee has played its part. It has made at least 20 recommendations, which have been welcomed by many bodies. Barnado's Scotland estimates that 250,000 children live in poverty and 100,000 live in fuel poverty in Scotland. I shall return to that point. The Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, like many other groups, has provided an excellent brief for MPs that draws attention to some of the 20 recommendations in the Committee's report.
	Recommendation 6 says:
	"the tax and benefits system must, at a minimum, ensure that no-one in full time work is living in poverty".
	A quarter of children living in poverty have an adult in the family who is in full-time work. The Committee suggested that the minimum wage and tax credits should be raised to address that problem.
	That reminds me of the evidence given to the Committee on 16 January 2007, 15 months ago, by Professor John Veit-Wilson of Newcastle university, who talked about the working poor. He said that, unfortunately, the UK leads Europe in the average percentage of people leaving low-quality jobs to go back into other low-quality jobs. The working poor remain the working poor. However, he also pointed out—this may help the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) with his question about independence—that Ireland is at the opposite end of the table. It is in the very fortunate position of having the highest proportion of people moving from low-quality jobs into high-quality jobs. It is important that we recognise the failures in our society and accept that there are better ways of dealing with the problem. Ireland clearly has some ability to improve things that Scotland does not have.
	The next recommendation in the report is that we should be careful about forcing people into work. Recommendation 10 highlights the fact that the parents pushed into work could be entering low-paid work. They could go from low-paid job to low-paid job to low-paid job. Although work is of course an important route out of poverty, we must ensure that people do not leave socially valuable work. The report points out that much of the work that many people do in the home is not recognised. The work of carers and those who look after children is not fully recognised, and we should be careful about forcing people into work of low economic value.
	Recommendation 12 calls for more resources. The Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland welcomes the £1 billion extra from the Chancellor, but it points out that this is only a quarter of what is needed. If we consider that we are fighting £1 billion a year wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, perhaps we should take another look at our priorities.
	Recommendation 15 is important, and offers a step that the Government can manage relatively easily. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) picked up on this point, too. The equalisation of child benefit would remove the discrimination against larger families and would make sure that the state values all children the same. Child benefit should be £18.80 for all children, not £18.80 for the oldest child and £12.55 for subsequent children.
	As I said, I want to touch on fuel poverty and how it impacts on one in 10 children. The memorandum submitted by The Highland council to the Committee in October 2006 marked out the low wages in rural economies and, as the Member representing Na h-Eileanan an Iar, I particularly recognise the higher costs of rural living. The current Scottish Government are trying to help with transport costs on the islands in my constituency through the road equivalent tariff, and a pilot project extended this to Coll and Tiree. However, as Edinburgh gives with one hand, London takes away with the other: the price of diesel was £1.34 a litre only a couple of days ago, and it could be higher now. The proportion of tax paid on fuel is higher in my constituency than probably any other in the land.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) touched on an important point when he said that the cost of central heating oil was rocketing for his constituents. The position is the same for my constituents, and the percentage of household income spent on fuel oil and other fuels, and the distances that people have to travel, must mean that far more people are being plunged into poverty. As has been said, it is sometimes not worth while for people to take a job if they have to travel 20 or 30 miles in what may well be a poor third-hand car, and face the costs associated with that travel.
	Perhaps we could throw party arguments to one side and aim to get child well-being higher on the agenda; our position in the UNICEF table should be a lot higher. Interestingly, in "The Health of Nations", the authors point out a fact that surprised me. The Swedish Government face the most unequal income distribution pre-tax, but the most equal post-tax. As one of the contributors to the Committee's report pointed out, before the first world war a commentator said that where a thinking rich man might see a problem of poverty, a thinking poor man might see a problem of wealth.

Alistair Carmichael: It is genuinely a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke), who made a reasoned and knowledgeable contribution. It is fair to say that as long as the right hon. Gentleman remains in this House, people with disabilities will always have a champion.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's latter point, I make only one observation. Ultimately, the issue will be resolved when disabled people see the services with which they are provided in Scotland. However, there is a larger point at issue, which is a classic illustration of the need to revisit the funding formula for the Scottish Parliament and of the need to give the Scottish Parliament greater control over the raising of its own budget. The Government in Westminster control finances and have a deliberate and entirely laudable aim, with a ring-fenced policy, but there is no guarantee of how money will be spent when it goes to Scotland. That is why we need to examine the wider issue, and the right hon. Gentleman has done us a service by giving a good example of the work that needs to be done by the Calman commission.
	I am delighted once again to be a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I was a member in the first Parliament in which I served and I have just rejoined. I was not a member when the Committee took evidence for the report but I joined it just before the report's publication and I could hardly have improved on its terms. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), who is an excellent Committee Chairman, on focusing the Committee's work in this Parliament on poverty in Scotland. It is an exemplar of how such a Committee can be made to work post-devolution and I commend him for his efforts.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) cited a couple of statistics on child poverty in Scotland that especially struck me: 250,000 children live in poverty and 100,000 children are in fuel poverty. I do not make a partisan point. Anyone who is a citizen of one of the world's richest nations should find that a source of profound shame and embarrassment. That is why the work of the Committee, the Government in Westminster, the Government in Edinburgh, local authorities, non-governmental organisations and private business is crucial in tackling that scourge.
	I congratulate the Government on their progress since 1997. They have put a focus that previously did not exist on reducing child poverty, and there has been some benefit. Like many who gave evidence to the Committee, I am concerned that progress has stalled. If we approach the subject on a less partisan basis, acknowledging that stalling becomes less difficult.
	The danger is that we are left with the very poorest—what might, if one were pessimistic, be perceived as an irreducible core. That is why partnership working, focusing on so many different levels, is supremely important. Let me pick up on a few matters for which special effort is needed.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson), who is not in his place, identified education. He is right that education knows no equal as a driver for social mobility. As the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) said, work and training constitute other opportunities for getting out of poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) said, transport is also important. Transport opens up, especially for young people and those in rural communities, a range of opportunities for education, social inclusion and developing talents, which would otherwise be denied them.
	I hope that, by the time the Minister responds, he will have had an opportunity to get a reply to the question that I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire). What assessment has the Department for Work and Pensions made of the impact of the remarkable recent increases in the price of basic foodstuffs and fuel? Many people in rural communities rely on a private car for transport and need fuel for that as well as for heating their homes.
	I draw hon. Members' attention to conclusion 24 of the report. It states:
	"We believe that rural poverty presents its own challenges, which will not be solved by an approach tailored to the small pockets of deprivation characteristic of urban poverty. It is vital that the Government's anti-poverty policies are subject to 'rural-proofing'. Witnesses have suggested that the establishment of a Commission for Rural Scotland might be a way to give rural communities a stronger, unified voice and we hope that the Government and the Scottish Executive will consider this proposal. Greater investment in outreach is needed to ensure that geographically dispersed communities have equal access to services".
	That is a cause close to my heart and that of my constituents. In many ways, poverty in urban areas is much easier to identify. One can sometimes identify urban areas that have a problem with low income and social deprivation just by walking round the streets. Rural areas often do not have the same critical mass of population and poverty is not so obvious. One might see a bonnie wee cottage with a well kept front garden, but behind the front door one is still as likely to find two or even three generations living in a house that was built for one family. That is a graphic illustration of the lack of affordable social housing that blights Scotland.
	Let me say a few words about tax credits. There is a rural perspective to tax credits, too. The Government place a great deal of reliance on tax credits, but I am sure that every hon. Member has encountered the same problem as I have: the hardship suffered by those who can least afford it that is caused by tax credits being overpaid and the overpayments being reclaimed. Tax credits seem to work best for people who work for a defined 36 or 40 hour week, with little overtime or fluctuations in their family circumstances. As soon as the family unit breaks up because of a separation or somebody gets a lot of overtime and their income increases, problems arise. However, a lot of people in areas such as the one that I represent are self-employed. Their incomes fluctuate throughout the year; indeed, their incomes for the previous financial year are often not known until the next financial year. Tax credits can hardly cope with that, which causes financial hardship for those least able to deal with it.

Alistair Carmichael: I am not particularly familiar with the situation in Aberdeen, but will she tell me what proposals were in the Labour alternative budget for Aberdeen this year?

Pete Wishart: Of course I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

Pete Wishart: I am very disappointed by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I hope that he is not suggesting that there is no place for universal benefits. The scheme has been welcomed by practically everyone in Scotland, and he should do the same.
	It will cost £3 billion to get the Government back on course to halve child poverty by 2010, but that figure needs to be put into perspective. It is one third of the £9 billion that the Government will spend on the infrastructure for the Olympic games in London. This week,  The Sunday Times published its "Rich List", and it shows that the wealthiest 1,000 people have seen their income quadruple under new Labour. Even under the brief premiership of the current Prime Minister, their fortunes have soared by a massive 15 per cent.—just when the financial squeeze kicks in for the rest of the community, with faltering house prices and people in poverty being hit especially badly.
	The abandonment of the 10p tax rate represents an appalling attack on the poor. Labour Members should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. The Government have proposed various spurious concessions, but I have no clue as to how they will get around the problem. I have seen a ridiculous suggestion that the winter fuel allowance could be used to compensate for the loss of the 10p starting rate of tax. It is totally ridiculous, and there will be a massive impact on the poorest in our community.
	The cost of child poverty to Scotland is absolutely massive. The Scottish Government have estimated it at between £.5 billion and £1.75 billion, but we know that, in terms of its impact on our society, the cost is almost incalculable. It will lead to poor levels of health and educational attainment, and the lost potential of every Scottish child who is in poverty. The Scottish Government produced a well researched paper on child poverty in Scotland. It concluded:
	"The savings from ending child poverty are potentially of a similar order of magnitude as the expenditure required to do so."
	That is the true economics of poverty. It shows that, if we were prepared to apply the resources, we could really start to deal with it.
	What are Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament doing while the Scottish Government get on with tackling and challenging child poverty? They had an opportunity to debate the problem in the Communities Committee, but they preferred to talk about golf courses. That shows what their priority for Scotland is. It is an absolute disgrace, and they should be ashamed.
	It is a pity that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) is no longer present, as we could have recruited him to the campaign. We can deal only with the symptoms: it is up to the Government in Westminster to resolve the problem. They have the powers but, if they are not going to use them, they should get out of the way and give them to the Scottish Parliament so that we can get on with dealing with what is a very real problem.

Pete Wishart: Of course I accept that we have to work in partnership, but the main powers and responsibilities for tackling child poverty reside with the Government. I maintain that they are not fulfilling their obligations in that regard, and that they should be doing much more.
	I want to deal briefly with a couple of recommendations in the report from the Scottish Affairs Committee. Recommendation 6, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar referred, states that
	"The tax and benefits system must, at a minimum, ensure that no one in full time work is living in poverty."
	Currently 25 per cent. of children are living in poverty with an adult who is working full time. That suggests to me that there is something not quite right about working family tax credits and child benefits. It is surely a basic assumption that if a child lives with a working parent there is no excuse for that child to be in poverty.
	Recommendation 10, to which other Members have referred, states:
	"Ministers must be cautious in suggesting that all parents are now expected to enter paid work."
	We must be careful about how we proceed. I am sure that I am not the only Member of Parliament who sees a large number of anxious people making their way to his surgery to express their feelings about being forced back into work and the impact that that will have on their child care arrangements. I am very concerned about the Government's policy. We must ensure that support is available for lone parents returning to work. Returning people to work should involve more carrots than sticks, and certainly there should be no use of sticks when children are involved.
	Above all, we need resources. We now know the cost of failing to fulfil our obligations and to meet the targets and goals set by the Government: it is £3 billion a year. That is what the Government need to invest in order to deal with this problem, and if they were serious about it, that is what they would invest.

Ian Davidson: I believe that the Government have a good record on tackling child poverty, and poverty in general. It is particularly noticeable in constituencies how much has been achieved. It can be seen on the ground, and in the lives of real people that have been improved. The Government are to be congratulated not only on the amount that they have done, but on changing the political climate by moving this issue up the political agenda. As some of my colleagues have observed, it is discussed much more now than in earlier years, and in that context the Select Committee's report is very welcome.
	However, the Government's record is not perfect. As I have pointed out in election leaflets in the past, much has been done, and there is still much to do. We need to identify the areas in which we think that more needs to be done. One of them is the national minimum wage. It is a tremendous achievement, but the rate at which it has been set is clearly inadequate. We should press for a substantial increase if we believe that one of the best routes out of poverty is employment. I accept that some companies will find it difficult to pay the increase, but we should not be trying to build an economy on the basis of low wages. The Government should also think more about the level of their commitment to temporary and agency workers. The way in which they have run away from that issue does not fill us with enthusiasm for their record.
	Another context in which we should consider how the Government deal with those in employment is tax credit. Much of what I intended to say has already been said today, but I do not think I can avoid repeating the point that people do not comprehend how the tax credit system works. They think of it as an act of God, and that is profoundly disempowering for its recipients. It is undoubtedly far too complex. The experience of falling into debt, and of the debt recovery process, inhibits many people from claiming.
	Perhaps the Government will take up the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan) that there should be an amnesty. I am sorry if I am interrupting the Minister's private conversations, because I hope that he will respond to that suggestion. Owing to their anxiety about the possibility of falling into debt, many people who would benefit from tax credits do not claim them. The low rate of benefit claims in my constituency is one of the issues that ought to concern us all.
	The third area where the Government have a good record is on the efforts that they are making to get people into work. The number of people who are unemployed has fallen substantially in my constituency, but there must be a recognition of the fact that we are now getting to those who are the most difficult to place: those who have literacy difficulties—I had to spell that twice before I got it right—those who have numeracy difficulties, and also those who have drink and drugs issues, mental health problems or physical problems. All those people are much more expensive to get into employment than the "normal" unemployed.
	In those circumstances, there is a real danger that the Government's drive to move those on invalidity benefits into work will often be easier and cheaper than tackling that hard core of unemployment. I hope that the people whom I mentioned are not neglected, but there is an indication that the targets of some employment agencies operating in my area, which are funded partly through the Scottish Executive, are zeroing in on the invalidity benefit people rather than on the hard core of unemployed. We want to ensure that they are not left behind.
	It is in that context that I have strong opposition to any policy of unlimited immigration, because I see the way in which immigration has affected unemployment in my constituency. When an employer is faced with a choice between a 50-year-old Scot who has perhaps been unemployed for 10 years and has drink problems and a number of other issues to address, and a 25-year-old Pole who is highly skilled, highly motivated and enthusiastic, it is a no-brainer to work out who will be chosen. We must recognise that those at the very bottom of the pile are being adversely affected by the scale of immigration into this country. Although the limits that the Government are seeking to put on third-world immigration are perhaps welcome, we need to keep monitoring the situation to ensure that the effects are genuine.
	I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) intervened on the Opposition spokesman on the question of Wisconsin, community programmes and the like. In approaching the question of how to deal with those who are most difficult to get into employment, we must examine the idea of reinstating things like the community programme, and the idea of sanctions.
	There is no doubt that a substantial group of people in my constituency and elsewhere have no intention of going into employment if they can possibly avoid it, and that in some, but not all, circumstances only the use of sanctions will be effective. I recall that there was almost unanimity when we said that there should be no fifth option for youngsters—the fifth option being simply taking benefits, sitting on unemployment and not being prepared to take one of the positive outcomes on offer. If positive outcomes are on offer, we ought to be prepared, taking account of people's circumstances, to apply sanctions, because the generosity of the benefits system depends on the consent of those who are contributing. Many people in my constituency are turned against the generosity of the benefits system if they believe that it is being abused by people who, in many cases, they believe to be better off on benefits than they themselves are as a result of making a positive effort to look after themselves and their families. The Government have perhaps not faced up to these serious issues as we should.
	In dealing with those who are not in work, we must examine how we can revise and review the benefits system. As with tax credits, the vast majority of my constituents do not understand how the system works—they find themselves struggling to comprehend how best to claim their entitlements—which means that they cannot make meaningful decisions about what their choices are. We must accept that rough justice might result from simplification, but that would be better than the current mess.
	Any revision of the benefits system ought to take account of the disincentives to work that the enormously high marginal rate of penalty places on people. Depending on their exact circumstances, people who move into employment might gain tax credit, but they would possibly lose all or part of their council tax benefit, their rent rebates, free school meals, free footwear and clothing grants, free dental care and free prescriptions. That is why the vast majority of my constituents who are on that margin do not believe the argument that work always pays. Many of them are prepared to take work, even it costs them money, because they see it as a stepping stone. None the less, for those who are on the margins, there is undoubtedly an enormous disincentive.
	Poverty is not just about individuals; it is about areas. The old Strathclyde region used to have areas for priority treatment. The jargon has changed over the years, but the recognition that there are whole areas affected by the blight of poverty and unemployment, into which resources should be poured, remains a good one. The average man in my constituency does not reach pension age, but in Eastwood, in the area represented by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, the average age at death is some 10 years higher. That is clearly unfair and unreasonable, and should be tackled—and not only on an individual basis. Such collective poverty and misery leads to poverty of ambition and aspiration, as well as poverty of service, because service providers know that they can get away with offering a lower level of service than they do to those who are more prosperous, more educated and more articulate, and can work the system better. Those who need the services least often end up getting the most.
	Initiatives such as Greater Pollok Working, under which the jobs created in the Silverburn development went overwhelmingly to local people, are to be welcomed. I hope that the jobs that will be created as a result of the Southern general hospital development will also go mostly to local people. As the Conservatives have pointed out, we need to try to empower local communities more. That is why I regret that the Scottish Government, in both its previous and current incarnations, have created community planning structures that are essentially mechanisms by which the centre can set all the rules and leave little discretion for local people to administer them.
	Like many others, I could have spoken for several hours on this subject, because it is one of the main drivers of my involvement in politics, and it motivates many people in our constituencies to speak out. I welcome the report by the Committee, and this debate, and I hope that the Government will return to this issue, not just on a wet Thursday when elections are being held in England, but on a day when we can have a more vigorous exchange about how best to take more of our fellow countrymen out of poverty.

Katy Clark: It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to make a contribution in this debate. I thank the chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar) for suggesting this topic for consideration by the Committee. The work that we have done has been very helpful for members, and has led to a report that makes some important recommendations and has been well received by the organisations that campaign on poverty issues in Scotland.
	Last Friday I was invited by Save the Children Scotland to one of the local primary schools to discuss the issue of child poverty in Scotland with the schoolchildren. That was part of Save the Children's campaign to end child poverty in Scotland. It was one of the most challenging meetings that I have had to attend as a constituency MP, because the children, having had the opportunity to look at the issue through their young eyes, were outraged that adults seem to accept it as reasonable that some children in our society do not have access to basic human rights or resources. They were outraged that some children do not have the opportunity to go to the cinema or on holiday, never mind access to decent food and fuel.
	The school asked to me to read a short statement to the House, and I hope that you will allow me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It states:
	"Gateside Primary School in North Ayrshire think that it is fantastic that the Government is aiming to half child poverty in the UK by 2010 but want to know why you can't do more now? If the Government could provide extra funding surely child poverty in the UK could be tackled sooner rather than later. Gateside pupils don't want children in poverty to lose hope and think life is not worth living. Children in poverty need your help now!"
	After questions, I told the children that I hoped that they would be as radical in what they said as they grew older. As we get older, we sometimes see things less clearly.
	Of course, we live in one of the richest countries in the world. There are disputes about how riches can be counted, but it is said that we live in the fourth richest economy in the world. However, the wealth in our country is unfairly distributed. The Government should be congratulated on the ambitious targets that they have set themselves, both on child poverty and on the eradication of all poverty in this country. It is important that we are having this debate today.
	I welcome the fact that an extra £1 billion was put forward by the Government in the recent Budget. Not a huge amount of additional funds were available in the Budget, but the political commitment that was given by putting an extra £1 billion into strategies to ensure that we meet our child poverty targets by 2010 is to be greatly welcomed. However, we need to take on board the comments made by the organisations that are campaigning on the issue, such as the Child Poverty Action Group. That group strongly welcomes what the Government are doing, but says that it believes that an extra £3 billion will be required to ensure that we meet the targets by 2010.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that he thought that we were shelving our targets for 2010 and that the 2020 target would never be met. The reason why the Committee wanted to look at the issue of poverty—all the evidence we received from organisations and academics showed that Scotland is meeting our targets now—was that we wanted to ensure that, politically, we continue to do everything we can to meet those targets.
	I want briefly to focus on some of the Committee's recommendations, and in particular I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson), who highlighted the wish of the Committee—expressed in a clear political statement—that no one in full-time work should live in poverty. Although we welcome the huge amounts of money that have been put into the system through tax credits and the number of children and families that have been lifted out of poverty through that mechanism, it is clear that the introduction of the national minimum wage, and the fact that more than 2.5 million people are in employment who were not in employment in 1997, have been at least as significant in achieving what we have so far achieved.
	We need to look again at the national minimum wage. I do not believe that it is the role of the state or of Government to subsidise bad employers. We need to question why so much tax credit money goes to people who work in full-time jobs. Is it reasonable that multinationals, supermarkets such as Asda and other organisations should pay wages that are either at minimum wage levels or just above? I hope that we will reconsider the level of the national minimum wage and significantly increase it.
	Another matter related to the national minimum wage which the Committee discussed was the youth rates. Part of the evidence from all the organisations from which we took evidence showed that there were problems with young people and poverty. Young people have not benefited as much as other groups from the Government's policies. Young people are better off than they were in 1997, but because they are not eligible for tax credits and because the minimum wage rates for them are lower, they have not benefited as much. I therefore welcome the commitment that the Government have made in the past fortnight to reconsider the youth rates for the national minimum wage.
	The evidence that the Committee heard was that if young people live in poverty, there is an impact when they become parents, and on their children. We cannot compartmentalise the issue of child poverty. It is a symptom of the fact that we have such a big gap between rich and poor, and that we have accepted high levels of poverty in such a wealthy country.
	The Government inherited an horrific situation in 1997. We had the highest levels of child poverty in Europe, despite the fact that we were one of the richest countries in Europe. A huge amount has been done, but we need to go further. We need to take on the comments that have been made about the tax credits systems, which has done so much. The system is highly bureaucratic and it does not cope very well with people's changing circumstances. The problem of overpayment is increasingly becoming a disincentive to apply for tax credits. I hope that, as we go forward, we take those points on board.
	We also need to consider the recommendation in the Committee's report that says:
	"Ministers must be cautious in suggesting that all parents are now expected to enter paid work."
	There has been a change of policy recently, whereby people with children aged 12 and over are now expected to work. That may not be appropriate in all circumstances. We must say clearly that there is a strong role for parents to look after their children at home.
	We must also consider an issue that all the campaigning organisations have raised with us: we should equalise the rate of child benefit. There have been significant increases in recent years, and we must continue that trend of big increases. However, we also must ensure that large families benefit as much as they can. The evidence that the Committee heard was that families with many children are often the families in the most extreme poverty, and the Government should look into that.
	I also ask the Minister to consider something that has been raised with me by Citizens Advice Scotland over the last couple of days. Regulations will be introduced in July to cut the backdating of benefit, particularly housing benefit, council tax benefit and pension credit. If there is any attempt to reduce the backdating of those benefits in October, that could affect some of the poorest families with children who rely on them. I ask the Minister to reconsider.
	We need to look at all our policies from the perspective of the impact that they have on child poverty and on meeting our poverty targets. As a Labour MP, I expect the Government to poverty-proof all our policies—whether those policies are on taxation or on other things. We have done a huge amount, and I believe that the political will is there to make sure that we meet the 2010 target. With all-party support from colleagues throughout the House, we will make a real difference to children's lives.
	If we allow children to live in poverty now, we will be living with the social consequences of that in the future. Those consequences include antisocial behaviour, crime and drug abuse—subjects that we have not dwelt on in the debate. The children at Gateside school were concerned about the impact on children of parents abusing drugs. If we do not deal with all those issues, we will live with the problems in the future.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central for instigating the report that has led to this debate. I very much hope that we will be able to come back here in two years' time to say that we have met our targets.

Ben Wallace: I am sorry, I do not have the time.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute criticised the Government's extra £1 billion to eradicate poverty, saying that an extra £2.5 billion was needed. As ever, spend, spend, spend from the Liberal Democrats.
	The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) made some genuine points, as did the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) in relation to local government and money coming from Westminster. I should tell the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South that we might not like the way in which the block grant is spent, but that is devolution. The Treasury could, if it wished, try different mechanisms to ensure that funding was ring-fenced, but hopefully the electorate will make that judgment at the next election. If the local papers carry headlines about that spending, the SNP administration in Aberdeen will not be in office much longer.
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) referred to the fairy tale. I shall merely say that the Scottish national party knows more about fairy tales than Alice in Wonderland, and leave it at that.
	As usual, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) made a robust and frank contribution. He would probably be surprised to know how much I agree with him on many of the issues that he raised. He has at heart the real interests of his constituents, and perhaps one day we will see where we agree.
	We have had a good debate and a long debate, although many might have predicted that it would not go the full time. We all believe in trying to eradicate poverty, no matter what our party allegiance, and no matter what the party of government would like to portray. I went into politics because the soldiers whom I worked with from the Scots Guards, from Bellshill, Castlemilk, Easterhouse and Govan, grew up in poverty and I felt that they deserved better government.

David Cairns: I have been practising. However, I am afraid that that is as good as it gets for the hon. Gentleman. He paid lip service to the issue at hand and moved quickly to the nationalist comfort zone—the consuming obsession with constitutional wrangling, in contrast with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke). It is shameful that the First Minister has not found time to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss child poverty, but has found time to write to Robert Mugabe and President Ahmadinejad of Iran, attempting to form some sort of coalition with them.
	The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland rightly said that the current huge external challenges make the targets harder to achieve. That is why we have to keep down inflation and unemployment and avoid the return to boom and bust, which occurred whenever those external shocks happened in the past.
	I regret that I do not have time to go into detail about the important contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).
	As I said at the outset, this has been a significant and timely debate. It has involved important contributions from beyond the House, from those on the front line of the campaign against the scourge of poverty. The debate has allowed us to reflect, 11 years to the day after our election, on the tremendous progress that has been made on reducing poverty and tackling low pay. The debate has also given us the opportunity to reflect on what still needs to be done. The Labour party came into being to combat poverty. It is our historic purpose and one to which we are as committed today as we have ever been—
	 It being Six o'clock, the motion lapsed without Question put.

Anne McGuire: I congratulate the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) on securing this debate on an important matter, not only for people employed as taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, but for all of us who are, as he clearly indicated, concerned with the safety of transport workers. Obviously, this is to a certain extent a health and safety at work issue. The Department for Work and Pensions takes a keen interest in the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, although, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Department for Transport leads on these matters within Government.
	As the hon. Gentleman also said, many Members of Parliament have shown a keen interest in this matter, and several spoke at a GMB union rally on Monday to support its campaign to draw attention to the serious safety issues affecting drivers. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to his constituents who have suffered violence as taxi drivers, or whose relatives have suffered such violence. As he said, they encouraged him to seek the debate.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned Bryan Roland, who, he might be interested to know, was part of the Department for Transport's research study group. I place on record our thanks to him and his colleagues for their help in formulating the report.
	The taxi and private hire trades provide an invaluable means of transport for thousands of individuals. Astonishingly, millions of journeys are made every year by taxi. Taxis might be used by an older person in an isolated village making their weekly shop in a market town, a commuter returning home after arriving at a railway station late at night, or night clubbers wanting a safe ride home. Rather like the hon. Gentleman, I have used taxis in nearly all those situations, although not in the first one—yet.
	Unfortunately, as with too many people who serve the public, taxi and private hire drivers are too often undervalued by the very people they serve. That can lead merely to rather casual dismissive behaviour by people, who treat drivers as almost invisible. Unfortunately —and far too often, as the hon. Gentleman indicated—it can lead to something worse. The reports that we have seen in the past few days, and which appear month after month in the trade press, about attacks on drivers, are far too depressingly familiar. Each report means that a driver and his or her family will have been deeply affected, sometimes in a most traumatic way, particularly in case of severe violence and death.
	The level of violence reported against private hire and taxi drivers is deeply worrying, and we share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. It goes without saying that verbal and physical assaults on drivers are totally unacceptable. Drivers have every right to work in a safe environment. The Government take very seriously any assault on front-line transport staff, and that is just as true for taxi drivers as it is for train and bus drivers, or other any transport worker going about their job. That is why we very much welcome the recent Sentencing Guidelines Council advice that assaults on transport workers, among others, cause harm to the individual and to the wider community. The council's view is that the sentence handed down by the courts should reflect that point.
	The Government recognise the concerns of drivers about their safety, and we are taking action to help to address those concerns. That is why, for the first time, we have undertaken national research to investigate the personal security problems that most concern and affect taxi and private hire drivers, with the help of trade associations, trade unions and drivers themselves. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about the report, and I can advise him that it will be published shortly, linking in to the analysis and research that has been done. The research has been received by the Department for Transport, but there still needs to be some consultation with stakeholders, taxi drivers and trade unions. Any guidelines that result from this must have credibility with the industry. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's frustration about what he feels is an inordinate delay, but we think this process is important, so anything that comes out of the research must be well proofed with the taxi drivers and private hire industry.
	It is increasingly clear that taxi drivers have to put up with a great deal while carrying out their jobs, including verbal and physical abuse, which many drivers feel is due to a lack of respect. There is significant under-reporting of incidents to the police, particularly in relation to bilking. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that, but he will know that bilking is what happens when a passenger runs off without paying. Incidents are rarely reported to the police, yet we know that to be one of the most common problems for today's drivers. Verbal abuse is a common occurrence, not only from passengers but from other road users and pedestrians. Unfortunately, too often the verbal abuse of minority ethnic drivers is also racist. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman highlighted that. As he said, the statistics for violence against drivers from the black and minority ethnic community are significantly higher than for the other drivers out there on the road. It is a sad fact of life that many drivers are almost resigned to seeing abuse as "part of the job". That should definitely not be the case.
	Police data do not automatically identify a victim of violent incidents or robbery as a taxi or private hire driver. That means that we do not have national data on the number of such incidents. However, local and regional data are available to give us a partial understanding of the regularity of such incidents. For example, an analysis of three years of recorded crime data on offences against drivers in west Yorkshire shows that there are, on average, 10 to 20 assaults a month—quite a figure. Many, but not all, violent incidents are alcohol-related and occur at night. Some of the attacks are premeditated and planned.
	The most serious incidents are already reported to the police, but I would, through this debate, encourage all those in the taxi and private hire trades to report all other incidents to the local police and appropriate local community safety forums. There are examples of initiatives to encourage such reporting, including of racially motivated and hate crime, to make the reporting procedure easy and accessible, and minimise its length. By building up a more accurate picture, the authorities will be able to monitor the incidents being experienced by the trade. I hope that local police, licensing authorities and others will be able to target their responses appropriately.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned in-vehicle CCTV and driver shields. Those can have a useful role to play in driver security, and they are currently in use in a number of vehicles. Local authorities can choose to fund in-vehicle CCTV as part of their wider work in protecting workers and members of the public, particularly through community safety partnership funding.
	Following on from the results of our research, as I said earlier, we will publish guidance to drivers on how to stay safe later this year, and we will also try to raise trade and police awareness of the legal position on bilking. In addition, we will be working to raise awareness among crime and disorder reduction partnerships about the need to engage with the trade to address crime and disorder affecting transport operators, and about the benefit to be derived from that.
	The Department's best practice guidance urged licensing authorities to look sympathetically on, and actively to encourage, the installation of security features. We are now embarking on a revision of the guidance, and will consult on that revision before publication. Our consultation will, of course, include representatives from the taxi and private hire vehicle trade, and we certainly welcome their input.
	It is essential that the trade, licensing authorities and other local partners work together on this issue. Taxi and private hire drivers are often seen as the "eyes and ears" of the local community. If we value them as such, they should be treated with respect, and given appropriate help so that they can carry out their valuable duties in safety.
	We are committed to improving the personal security of transport staff, including taxi and private hire drivers. Assaults on taxi drivers are totally unacceptable, and as I said earlier, taxi drivers have the right to work in a safe environment. It is important to consider how we maintain their safety, and the Department for Transport looks forward to further work with the trade, the police and the Home Office on this important issue. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Northampton, South for raising this matter.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Six o'clock.
	Corrections
	 Official Report, 24 April 2008: The following sentence appears erroneously several times: "Within the framework of those five principles there is of course an enormous amount of detail, on which I look forward to hearing the House's views."
	Delete it from the following columns:
	In col. 1524, final paragraph, lines 4 to 7, between "Government" and "statistics"
	In col. 1525, first paragraph, lines 1 to 3, between "and" and "compare"
	In col. 1526, penultimate paragraph, lines 8 to 10, between "whom" and "were"
	In col. 1529, first paragraph, lines 5 to 7, between "this" and "House"
	In col. 1530, in quotation in second paragraph, between "Overall" and "GDP"
	 Official Report, 30 April 2008: In col. 396, delete Jim Dobbin from the Ayes and insert Jeremy Corbyn.